Talk:Flag of Oregon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:53, 7 June 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Oregon Top‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Heraldry and vexillology

Flag of Oregon is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology

This article was a Collaboration of the Week/Month for WikiProject Oregon May 5–May 13, 2008.

Comments

We need the large version of the revese and overse of this unique flag. - fonzy

Only few national flags (such as the flag of Paraguay) have a differing obverse and reverse. The entry for the flag of Paraguay now states the reverse and obverse sides are the same. A different example (if one exists) should be cited or this should be removed entirely, I believe. CoachMcGuirk 17:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the flag of Paraguay page was incorrect (and has been updated) -- Paraguay's still the only two-sided (apart from mirror-image corrections) national flag, and valid to cite from here. ScottMainwaring 07:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two images on this page use different shades of blue. Is this an error, or do the two sides really use different shades? Nik42 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an error, and has now been fixed (thanks, Zscout370). --ScottMainwaring 21:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All USA/State seals, emblems, crests, and flags that contain an sitting eagle, always have the eagle holding an olive branch in one set of talons and arrows in the other set of talons. The head of this eagle is always turned towards the olive branch to indicate that we first look to peace prior to looking to war. Why is the State Seal of Oregon looking towards the arrows? Don Barker 21:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. You might want to pose it at the talk page for Seal of Oregon as well. --ScottMainwaring 21:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting indeed. However, in looking at the Oregon flag and seal, it doesn't look like it is holding arrows at all, and not necessarily an olive branch. Then, in scanning other states at random, saw New York and Illinois both have eagles without either arrows or olive branches. So I think Don's original assertion may be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcbrc2 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New design contest

The state of Oregon is holding a contest for a new flag because 2009 is the state's (and the flag's) 150th anniversary. You might want to change the article to say that.71.193.162.77 (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contest is being held by the Oregonian. It's not official, though they may submit the winning design to the Legislature for consideration. --Makaristos (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the flag was not created until the 1920s, so it is not turning 150. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., the state newspaper decided to have a fun contest to make their own state flag. Why is this notable? The contest page states, "The current flag remains a legal flag and entitled to all the honors it currently has, and agencies can continue to fly it. The current flag never goes away. We don't want it to; we want to see what of these designs you like best." I fail to see how this one-off contest is worthy of mention here. (Except maybe for the fun fact that the Oregonian was pressured to add "None" as an option and that that won.) ([1])
Ulmanor (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I fail to see why the newspaper-contest-winning flag deserves a picture on this page, with no text at all about it in the article. Removing the Oregonian-contest flag from the article as irrelevant. Ehurtley (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was information in the article about that flag contest and reaction. Perhaps both should be restored. -DevinCook (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it isn't relevant to the actual flag. It was one local newspaper contest - the 'new' flag never got *ANY* traction, not even unofficially (as the Cascadia flag has.) I like the alternate flag, but it's just not notable. Ehurtley (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 redesign

Is this section noteworthy enough to keep? Other than mentioning that a change was proposed, it doesn't seem to bring much to the article. JohnMcButts (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that it's worth a mention in the article; a reference in that section cites a bill that made zero progress after being introduced, which means it did not receive serious consideration by the Legislature. Musashi1600 (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 06:24, 26 November 2013 edit JohnMcButts (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,669 edits →2013 redesign: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:53, 7 June 2014 edit undo Musashi1600 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 3,547 edits →2013 redesign Next edit →
Line 33:		Line 33:

	Is this section noteworthy enough to keep? Other than mentioning that a change was proposed, it doesn't seem to bring much to the article. [[User:JohnMcButts\|JohnMcButts]] ([[User talk:JohnMcButts\|talk]]) 06:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)		Is this section noteworthy enough to keep? Other than mentioning that a change was proposed, it doesn't seem to bring much to the article. [[User:JohnMcButts\|JohnMcButts]] ([[User talk:JohnMcButts\|talk]]) 06:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

			:I seriously doubt that it's worth a mention in the article; a reference in that section cites a bill that made zero progress after being introduced, which means it did not receive serious consideration by the Legislature. [[User:Musashi1600\|Musashi1600]] ([[User talk:Musashi1600\|talk]]) 11:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)